Should surface water run off or be piped away?

[BCrosby]

"Unfortunately today, soooo many older courses have basically become "catch basins" for runoff from new development that has grown up around them."

Mark makes a good point that can be expanded. Sooo many new courses are built as part of developments that locate housing at a higher elevation than the golf course. If you can offer homeowners better views, they'll pay more for the lot.

But water from those house sites has to go somewhere. Which can present complicated drainage issues, ones that many older private clubs don't have to face.

Bob   

[Don Mahaffey]

Is that model really still alive?

for new developments golf courses became a very expensive water retention basin.

Certainly many courses have to deal with this, but are new courses (2014 and forward) still being built this way? As a storm water retention area for residential development?

[Steve Okula]

Is that model really still alive?

for new developments golf courses became a very expensive water retention basin.

Certainly many courses have to deal with this, but are new courses (2014 and forward) still being built this way? As a storm water retention area for residential development?

Don, there are no new courses 2014 and onward, we'll have to wait until someone builds one post 2014 to see.

[Mark Bourgeois]

All the professionals in this thread saying sheet drainage isn't enough can rest easy: I am never going to build a golf course, so you won't face the uncomfortable possibility that you'd fire me as a client. I would be absolutely your worst nightmare client: I would pay you above market and make what you'd consider unreasonable demands.

Because I say if I did hire you I would not take any of the excuses, whining, and various "reasons" given here. Sheet it into lateral hazards and from there into ponds integral to a hole or two (if you must and if we're not on a links). Make gravity your pump that controls water levels. For your troubles I would pay a comfortably above-market fee, but I would deduct the cost of every pump from the fee. Also, I would hold one fourth of the fee in escrow for one year, deducting from they the costs of any drainage projects required during that first year.

Heck, I might just dig up ol Donald Ross and split the fee with him. Or maybe hire Bobby Weed to help him out.  

That's me then. Like Breaker Morant said, "Shoot straight you bastards! Don't make a mess of it."  

[BCrosby]

Don -

I'm not sure if that is still the model. It's hard to know since no one seems to be doing golf course developments today. Water usage rules are getting more strict in many places. That might affect developments going forward.

From what I see (saw), locating home sites at or above the level of the golf course was fairly pervasive for developments pre-2007. For good business reasons. Home sites below the level of the golf course would have had less appeal (absent unusual circumstances).

Bob

[Mark_Fine]

Mark,
Sorry to say, Donald Ross used drain tile in his golf courses!

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark, apology accepted. 

Anyway, sure Ross did and so did Mackenzie. But a lottttt less! Plus they used gravity....like a Boss [Jim Carey voice]. 

[Paul Gray]

But to link to Mark's point, active drainage is fair more likely to be required on a site which is less than ideal for golf, i.e. what Mark refers to as a site where a golf course shouldn't even have been built. No?

And what does "good for turf," in the context you use it, actually mean?

Paul, do you believe some people do not deserve to play golf near to their homes? In some areas, you can go hundreds of miles without finding land that drains well.

Not at all. The "shouldn't have been built" bit wasn't from me. I was merely trying to establish a link between method and soil.

[Peter Pallotta]

From my limited playing experience: if an architect was of the mind to use the natural run-off method, the bits of pipes and drains he still required only improved the situation; while if an architect was of the mind to deal with water primarily with pipes and drains, no amount of pipes and drains ever worked out all that well.  

I don't think the ODGs were geniuses in regards to the natural run-off method; drainage on their courses was improved (then and over the years) with extra effort and with pipes and drains. I think modern architects threw the baby out with the bathwater and, push come to shove, opt first for more pipes and drains instead of making run-offs as central to their routings as 'strategy' and 'walkability' and 'aesthetics'.

I'd rather have a drier walk than a shorter walk, and I'd rather have a drier/faster turf dictate angles and shot selection than I would an architect design them.

[JMEvensky]

Don -

I'm not sure if that is still the model. It's hard to know since no one seems to be doing golf course developments today. Water usage rules are getting more strict in many places. That might affect developments going forward.

From what I see (saw), locating home sites at or above the level of the golf course was fairly pervasive for developments pre-2007. For good business reasons. Home sites below the level of the golf course would have had less appeal (absent unusual circumstances).

Bob

This is precisely the situation at my place. Club moves way out in the sticks in 1971. Big housing development starts on one side of the golf course in the 80's. The water runoff is a very expensive problem which nobody saw coming.

[MClutterbuck]

But to link to Mark's point, active drainage is fair more likely to be required on a site which is less than ideal for golf, i.e. what Mark refers to as a site where a golf course shouldn't even have been built. No?

And what does "good for turf," in the context you use it, actually mean?

Paul, do you believe some people do not deserve to play golf near to their homes? In some areas, you can go hundreds of miles without finding land that drains well.

Not at all. The "shouldn't have been built" bit wasn't from me. I was merely trying to establish a link between method and soil.

Sorry, I thought it was. I have read it before on GCA as well. Would love to have some links land close to home... for better and for worse we have 10-20 feet of highly fertile sedimentary material that retains water like a sponge. Great for soy and maze, bad for golf. It is also dead flat

We got nearly 2,000 milimeters of rain this year. The course I grew up in, a 1907 Mungo Park design, makes great use of a creek and until recently had little or no drainage. It is renowned for its great conditions after heavy rain. As I recall, drainage was added starting around 1990, but only on small areas of the fairways without changing the shaping and with no visibile collection drain. It has worked great and has not altered the golf course at all.

I guess that even on bad soils intelligent shaping can avoid drainage.

[Jeff_Brauer]

From my limited playing experience: if an architect was of the mind to use the natural run-off method, the bits of pipes and drains he still required only improved the situation; while if an architect was of the mind to deal with water primarily with pipes and drains, no amount of pipes and drains ever worked out all that well. 

I don't think the ODGs were geniuses in regards to the natural run-off method; drainage on their courses was improved (then and over the years) with extra effort and with pipes and drains. I think modern architects threw the baby out with the bathwater and, push come to shove, opt first for more pipes and drains instead of making run-offs as central to their routings as 'strategy' and 'walkability' and 'aesthetics'.

I'd rather have a drier walk than a shorter walk, and I'd rather have a drier/faster turf dictate angles and shot selection than I would an architect design them.

The first few paragraphs are pretty spot on.  Every catch basin provides potential for a little wet area, if it is blocked with leaves, or even not level, too small, etc.  The do cause extra maintenance (and more so, using undersized and too flat pipes that don't flow well enough to self cleanse themselves.)  Pete Dye, among others has lamented his "catch basin every 80 ft (4 sticks of drain pipe) method at some Florida courses.

It really works better to route around poor areas (not always possible, especially in housing where the golf course does tend to get the lower lying land) and use drains to pick up the off site water before it reaches critical golf areas, rather than put the catch basins in the fairways.

On the other hand, adding basins can help control flow which can greatly assist grow in.  Some contractors add catch basins every 250-300 feet if they are responsible for growing a course in.  I have plenty of pictures of washed out long swales from grow ins over the years that would have been helped had the water been limited in how big an area drains.  Eventually (and it really is about 300 feet or less) your desired "sheet flow" turns into concentrated flow, which can be erosive.

So, it is a balance, and basically, you do what you gotta do, striving to put in just the right amount of pipe and basins for the site.  In general, I have found that the most efficient designs spend about the same amount for earth moving as drainage.

Back to the original post, in a restoration situation, I would have actually favored adding small basins in low areas rather than changing Colt shaping, since once that is gone, its gone.  The basins could be small, as I doubt the watershed areas would be big.

And lastly, to TD, years ago I came to the conclusion that using subsurface or French drains to solve surface drainage problems didn't work as well as basins.  Those tiles clog and need to be dug up and rebuilt as you found out.  Basins usually don't lose efficiency over the years, although on golf courses, they tend to be sized too small, and pipes tend to be undersized as well, leaving standing water around basins, which eventually hurts turf quality.

As Peter notes, the old guys weren't geniuses, although they understood the principles.  Old clay or concrete tiles were heavy and hard to work with, and very expensive.  Corrugated Metal was easier, but had corrosion problems.  The advent of the HDPE pipe in the 80's (4" was earlier, but the larger sized kept getting added as they became accepted) made installation of drain pipes easier, cheaper, and faster.

So, naturally, architects were more in favor of using them, so construction technology again (like bulldozers that weren't available in the Golden Age) did change the philosophy of drainage somewhat in favor of more pipe and less earthmoving.  Yes, some architects used it as a way to shape everywhere, knowing if they created a hole they could drain it.  Most, I think, were more restrained.

As to using golf courses for retention, it was pretty common and probably still will be.  The developer has to give up land for the detention basins. If it can double dip as a golf course, the actual cost of retention goes way down.  It could also double as park or nature area, as well, though.  If they are clever, though, they got the golf course to agree to build them in as part of their construction cost, making them essentially free for the land donation.

[Dave McCollum]

I had the good fortune to play Bandon Dunes with a young architect/builder.  There seemed to be a lot of catch basins connecting to subsurface drain pipes (why are they called tiles?).  I asked him why there were so many and what conditions dictated their use?  I don’t remember his exact answer, but the gist of what he said was something like “inexperienced architect not familiar with working on sand.”  This  talented young architect hadn’t had a lot of opportunity to build his own designs on any site, much less one so incredibly full of potential as those at Bandon.  However, he had worked extensively at Bandon and on some of the best modern courses built on sand in his young career (as an associate or onsite project manager).   Maybe a bit of resentment that DMK got that opportunity and other qualified and talented young guys did not.  The real point he was making was that a more experienced architect  might have handled the drainage issues differently, or more simply and elegantly, on such a site. 

What I took from his comment is what is being expressed here about drainage solutions being very dependent on the land and the conditions in the field.  His training, from some of the best guys getting the most from the land while building “natural” courses, of course tended to as “minimalist” as possible.  Why spend money on stuff that’s not needed?   

[Joe Hancock]

                                                     Why spend money on stuff that’s not needed?   

This is a less-than-savory aspect of design and construction. But, for some, business is business.

Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dave McC,

Generally, tiles refers to perforated pipe, which allows sub surface water to enter, where as drain pipes are solid, and the water enters primarily via catch basins and the like. Sometimes, you do use perforated tile between catch basins in hopes of handling both types of water.

While there may have been some resentment, sometimes there is just a different experience, or different needs.  Certainly, my experience as time goes on is to over build drainage, rather than under build it, and maybe DMK just had similar experience or philosophy, having somehow learned his lesson earlier than the rest of us.  His dad was a greens keeper, so maybe the importance of drainage was really drilled into him? 

Or may be MK gave him a directive along the lines of "they are coming from a long way to play here, let's make sure the rain delays are a minimum."  I might design a private course differently, since the dues are collected either way, whereas every hour a public course loses tee times, it is lost, never to be recovered revenue.  Again, just a typical scenario, not saying that is what was said in your example.

I have seen lots of architects generally claim it could be done cheaper, but we all have our own ideas, which vary across the spectrum about the long term cost/value of drainage.  Knowing, as I do, how much drainage gets added later to nearly every course, I rarely disagree with a decision to add more of it, figuring you "pay now or pay later."  Now is usually cheaper!

From your description, he must have worked on the Doak or CC courses there after the fact.  It is quite possible that they had a chance to learn that maybe DMK over did it on these site conditions, too and made use of that knowledge.  It would be interesting to see if that young associate, once it was his name on the project would be more conservative in his assessment and more liberal with his drainage!  Again, all just speculative possibilities, but most architects cringe when someone who may not be fully aware of their charge critiques their designs.  That would include a drainage scheme.

[Don Mahaffey]

Jeff,
that fully loaded BMW is cheaper now then it will be in 10 years so i suggest you borrow to the max and go buy it right now! You'll get enough work to pay it off within a year, and if you need confirmation on that the sales guy will whip up a quick pro forma for you.

(I hope I don't need a smiley face)

[Bruce Katona]

Ponding water does not do great things for the turf, eliminate ponding. Most of us here on the east coast (Archie Struthers at Twisted Dune was an exception) aren't blessed with well drained soils, so sheet flow and drainage are required to get the rin and run off into either reclamation ponds or stormwater facilities.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don, you can be as cynical as you want, but my experience is my experience, and I think I try to get as much value as my client as possible.  As such, I don't think any hint that I spend money unwisely is warranted from an uninformed bystander.

Years ago, I had a housing developer and we did an analysis of the labor of QCV vs automatic. Then we did other analysis, based on the fact that he thought he would sell out lots in 7 years, so if it was cheaper in that time, we were going to do it.

If I have a management company with a 5 year contract, and they felt that way, I would do the same calculations.

If it was a city we presumed would own their low price muni for a long time, but could bond extra funds now to keep costs and capital improvements lower late out of revenues, I would recommend as much drainage, irrigation, path, etc. as they could possibly afford now, because long term, it will be a better value.

When buying cars, shoes, or even tee times, I have always seen total value as the key component, not just lowest price.  And, I treat my clients the same way, rather than just assuming the lowest price is necessarily the best.  However, the lowest price for what we want to accomplish for them is always best.  That is what professional architects are supposed to do, and I think most take that very seriously.

As to any insinuation that I or most architects get more money from spending more, the fact is that I charge lump sum fees.  And in most bids, after the bid we go back and value engineer further to get the best balance of cost and value.  You and I (or Jack Nicklaus and I) may have different opinions on how that value is best accomplished.  

But, the fact remains that most professional architects think in mostly similar ways, most of the time.  I have often joked that if Trump wanted to hire me and spend unlimited funds, I am not sure how I would, or even could do it.  Sure, there are some guys who specialize in high dollar projects, and also charge more in fees.  However, if all clients were the same, they obviously wouldn't get that.

Ditto with most cities hiring based on qualifications and experience, knowing they probably could bet a cheaper price somehow.  But, they have been burned by low bids, and fly by night contractors so many times, that they prefer someone solid and in biz forever, even at the higher price.

Short version, the golf design market is too varied to insult all of us with one broad brush.

[Dave McCollum]

Thanks Jeff,

I’m an amateur in this course building business, just trying to learn.  But a dangerous amateur because I have a canvas on which to paint.  I do know about perforated and solid pipe.  In my experience, both are generally PVC these days.  I thought “tiles” was an archaic word dating back to a period such drainage devices more resembled ceramic or cement pipe and, thus, more like tile.

Thanks for your other observations as well.  A much better contribution to the discussion than I could make as a know-nothing.  What impressed me was how much experience matters in making such choices.  In this case, I think he was saying that on sand based sites you can rely on more surface drainage shaping and less so on installed underground systems.  As you point out, that’s a pretty gutsy call that better be based on successful experience rather than just trying to save a few bucks.  If additional drainage work has to be installed later, that’s not good.             

I didn’t want to identify the guy based on what I heard and thought he meant.  He’s a friend.  He’s the professional and I have no business speaking for him.  My comments were less about him and what DMK did or didn’t do and why.  It was more along the lines of my admiration for the “less is more” approach to building sustainable golf courses.  A topic best left to professionals rather than hacks like me.

I’m interested in this topic for my own reasons.  I have a sand-based course.  They are entirely different creatures.  I have hired supers that have not worked on sand and discovered there is quite a learning curve in how to irrigate and take care of them.  We have killed more turf by overwatering than the reverse.  I also rebuilt a green to USGA specs, or so I thought, to replace one of our original, push up greens.  It’s the worst green on the course.  I’ve designed new holes and changed the routing.   What I learned the hard way is never to do these things without the help and insight of a professional architect.

[Steve Okula]

I suggest that the term "drain tiles" is a holdover from the old days, pre WWII, when subsurface drainage was typically constructed with short (1 foot or so) terra cotta tubes placed end to end. I have found these on various sites where they were installed by farmers or somebody before it became a golf course. They may have been rectangular or round in shape, but the resembled tiles of the same material used in patios, curbs, roofs, etc.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

I got thinking about the more is less, cheaper is better, and realized the real discussion there might be had on irrigation.  I know you pride yourself on less expensive irrigation systems, and believe you and I would share a few "Amen Brothers'!" sentiments when discussing how to keep cost down, from what I can ascertain.

That said, in reality, when we propose less expensive irrigation, we are in reality proposing:

Fewer heads/less acres covered (either non existent or QCV only)
Less sophisticated controls (including part to part heads, single head wiring, etc.)
Pipe sizes at less than watering every sprinkler every day, or daily watering in over six hours.
Perhaps eliminate weather stations and wired decoders, etc.

Of course, the real problem there is if the superintendent is already on board.  If so, it can be hard to convince them that they should do with less.  Would be interested in how others handle that.  Regardless of how much who is paid, most irrigation designers only design less than industry standard if pressed, and after writing a sufficient CYA memo!
 

[Don Mahaffey]

No Jeff, not at all. Your post is 100% inaccurate but what I've come to expect from you.

I've put 4 systems in the ground in the last three years.

All had single head control, all had the most current Rainbird or Toro software and all were 100% HDPE.

And all were less $$$ then what most are putting in the ground today, a couple were a lot less $$$

The issue I have with you and so many others in golf is you think more $$$ automatically means better.

My other major issue is that many in golf are much more beholden to other industry pros and vendors then they are to their clients. I've seen it up close and personal, first hand knowledge, and I believe it to be true no matter what you tell me.

I'm not cynical, I'm a realist and I know what i see.

And what I see is very similar to what Joe said. A course just has the best of the best (what everyone tells them is best, data be damned) so they buy every option possible and you end up with what I posted last week, 20 irrigation/drainage surface components in the collar of a 6500 sq ft green. And then the green ends up getting most of it's water from a hose. That is insane to me. 100% insane. Not the hose part, but the fact they have to have all that stuff, just in case. Please tell me how that is good for the game of golf. Yet it is the golf industry you helped build and defend. Just like you preach adding drainage just in case. A supt adding a little drainage once in awhile is not the end of the world. And chances are, they will be adding some no matter what you do.

Re irrigation, I have recently reviewed 2 different studies that show distribution uniformity of an irrigation system has little correlation to uniformity of soil moisture. Think about that for a second. It completely blows up the "tighter is always better" spacing equation. Yet it will never be published or pointed put by the ASGCA, because then who will pay for the fancy dinners at the GIS?

I could go on, but your cheaper is better comments really is misguided and an insult to those of us who refuse to get sucked into always doing what is best for business instead of what is good for golf.

The absolute worst thing i have ever done for my business is try and sell the idea of being practical or efficient; that it is OK to question "industry standards". I would be much more successful from a business standpoint if I was selling 3,000 heads and 55' spacing. But my son is going into the business, and I'd like there to still be a golf "industry" in 20 years. Plus I don't believe in it. I don't care what you do. But I do care when someone says my items can't be on the golf menu. That pisses me off, because I know it can work if people are just willing to do some study, verify what "experts" tell them. Haven't we had enough BS in golf?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

It would appear that we agree on the specifics, but naturally have some disagreements on the broader industry.  While I would agree, for instance, that irrigation companies do support builders and architects associations.  I don't believe the influence is all that much.  All 3 companies contribute and in reality, where else are we going to get irrigation product?  I once asked a Japanese company why there were no Japanese competitors got a response along the lines of they studied it, and the market wasn't big enough.  Even any third American company has always had trouble establishing a firm foothold.

I know there have been some exclusives between designers and irrigation brands (Palmer and Toro come to mind, a special case as he endorsed them more as a pro than architect) and some others that favor one over the other, but I always competitive bid between two or three brands.  I suspect most do, although again, if a super favors one brand over the other, and the competitive bidding doesn't get the prices nearly equal, we usually go with his favorite even if more.  

As to specifics, I agree on more heads not necessarily getting better coverage.  First, its well known that any efficiencies gained with new equipment are first used to water more acreage, rather than save water.  Also, I did an informal study, and found a few supers who had the opportunity to measure water use pre and post new irrigation.  They said they actually put more water down with the new system, and less with fewer sprinklers, contrary to the general beliefs.

Like you, I also explore differing sprinkler spacing, and of course, it always comes out that you use fewer sprinklers with wider spacing.  The irrigation designer usually preaches closer spacing and its benefits, and we typically come out somewhere in between.  It is hard (again with the superintendent and owner and other consultants on board and in the meetings) to recommend too low a system. Again, I can't speak for everyone in the biz, but I would guess systems on my courses come out somewhere between the Yugo and BMW.  I rarely think the Yugo is the way to go, however.  I don't know that all the features of the Beemer system ever get used.  

Just from your posts, and other info I can gleem, I don't think we are that far apart conceptually on irrigation.  Could be wrong.  But I always applaud anyone who value engineers to the hilt, and you seem to fit that mold.

If your systems come out substantially cheaper than the average, then I still believe it has to be some combo of spec/design criteria reductions from the "high end system" specs.  I don't think there is anything wrong with that but am hard pressed to see how it is done without reductions in the four areas I list.  It would be interesting to see what your head count, per head price, etc. are, and how you felt you accomplished it.  In the irrigation designers I have worked with, I do see that some work harder than others to shorten mainline runs to the absolute minimum.  Others leave them bigger than absolutely necessary, thinking that a super not familiar with the hydraulics might blow pipe out of the ground.

A fifth might cost factor is sometimes that the "bigs" go through the overhead bloating that sometimes comes in big companies, and have to adjust.  Seems like the whole biz is in a constant state of adjustments.

I am not smart enough to know what is best for the future of the golf biz.  Nor do I know for sure what is BS and what is not.  I just have trouble with black and white characterizations of design decisions I consider to be, in current parlance, 50 shades of gray, like implications that all in the biz is BS.  It doesn't just seem that way.

[Steve Okula]

Don & Jeff,

You talk about closer and wider sprinkler head spacings. I was under the impression that the only correct spacing was 100% overlap.

What am I missing?

On another point, I'd be lost without my weather station and central computer. They allow me a tremendous economy of water, and I wouldn't start there to save mopney on installation. 

[Don Mahaffey]

Jeff,
Ways to reduce irrigation costs.

1) It is not an irrigation problem, it is a golf problem.  You are not building an irrigation system, you are building a golf course. I know that sounds stupidly simple, but I think you know what I'm talking about here.

2) While not practical everywhere, design to the irrigation as much as possible. That may sound counter to the point above, but designers get way to interested in little nooks and crannies and funky areas that may look artistic (at first) but are a major pain in the rear end to properly irrigate, and require extra irrigation and maintenance inputs for no real golf payoff.

3) Edges cost money. Reduce edges. Courses with less turf/native interfaces are easier to maintain, and easier to irrigate...classic looking as well...bonus is less mowing lines. Double bonus is no edge means no perimeter heads.

4) Incorporate tees into previous green surrounds. Again simple concept, but try and lose the island tee deal as not only are they a pain to irrigate, they are also a pain to maintain. And the design looks better when the tees are an extension of the previous green or upcoming fairway. Added bonus is you'll use less path.

5) You can get a DU of 85%+ with 75' spacing. You can get a DU close to 90% with 60' spacing (CIT numbers from a controlled environment, not real life in either case) Refer back to what I've known for a long time but is finally being studied by some turf researchers who can read the tea leaves, DU does not correlate as closely to uniform soil moisture as the irrigation vendors try to convince everyone. Soil moisture reigns supreme in any golf irrigation applications. That is what matters, managing soil moisture.
All things being equal in terms of irrigation design style, did you know that you'll need 56% more heads with 60' spacing vs 75' spacing? It is not a linear equation since each sprinkler is a circle. Pipe, wire, and install is linear, so the increase in those materials would be about 25%, but heads that spray a circular pattern is a different story. At about $1200-$1300/head give or take, that 56% on a 100 acre site adds about  500 more heads.  Do the math.
Is that worth 2 - 5% higher DU when we know the key to even soil moisture is equally about agronomics and good greenkeeping  vs  just relying on a high dollar system that gives a slightly higher DU? The argument against from the establishment will be about control.  Control!!! They'll shout it from the rooftops, it's all about control!!! But you have the same single head control, the same central software, same weather stations or moisture sensors. You tell me what is easier to manage and control, 800 stations, or 1300 stations? What is easier to maintain, trim around, keep level, service?
 You can't design the superintendent out of the equation.

6) Lose the satellites and go with a two wire system. Less to install, less to buy, easy to care for once you lose the satellite mentality.

7) Just because you are putting in a new system doesn't mean you need the biggest pump station in the region. Be practical, and even though you'll be taken to task by some supers, you are trying to save water, and be energy efficient. Over sizing the pumps and mainline don't save water and or money.  

Get the contractor involved in the design. There are some really good small contractors out there and they love to value engineer. Put your pride down and use their help to find value engineering and installation scheduling solutions.

9) Most importantly, remember the quality turf model is a balancing act between all inputs, and while irrigation is very important, it is just one component and does not replace a good superintendent. Balancing the nutrient and cultural programs with the irrigation is what it is all about and we've let irrigation drive the bus way too often.